Penultimate Friday, the country was awash with news of a magic wand cabinet reshuffle, at least, from the perspective of CPDM cronies and official media. This is intriguing for an issue that had evoked no novelty in regard to its content or form although unlike in previous times, an element of surprise inhered in the fact that he had kept Cameroonians waiting and guessing until they lost interest and transferred their attention to more pertinent national issues like the simmering Anglophone crisis.
For the benefit of doubt, we can say that he avoided the customary embarrassment stemming from the fact that his ensuing cabinet in terms of persons and portfolios would have in normal times already been public knowledge before official announcement. To that extent, his deification by hangers-on and official media can therefore be understood within the context of a man whose proneness to megalomania has attained astronomical heights that warrant such revelry. Moreover, as Head of State, his actions are worthy of attention, no matter how impertinent they might appear, given that all previous efforts to consign him to the dustbins of history have failed, woefully, owing to our natural predilection for toadying.
The above notwithstanding, whatever status Cameroonians choose to ascribe to their Head of State, what is certain is that the heightening infusion of the persona of the First Lady, Chantal Biya into the national psyche is becoming very worrisome. It is worrisome for two reasons. The first has to do with the fact that our statecraft hinges on a very fragile foundation that gives room for even frivolities like personal aggrandizement instead of the rule of law to come into play.
Secondly, the rate at which sycophants and pseudo-patriots are wishing the first couple immortality makes it possible for us to get up one morning and discover that a presidential decree has transformed Chantal Biya to heir apparent to her husband’s throne. This assertion is in no way casting aspersions on the humanitarian proclivity of our First Lady. Far from it! Who can gainsay her involvement in uplifting the drudgery imperiling the lives of underprivileged Cameroonians? Who has not been taken aback by the stunning feats midwifed by her humanitarian stables that include CERAC and Chantal Biya Foundation?
Nevertheless, the recent hullaballoo occasioned by her participation during last week’s International Day of the Woman conjures the possibility of her elevation to a constitutionally recognized figure in the country. To buttress this assertion, we need to just throw our minds back to the overdrive the Civil Cabinet of the Presidency and the Ministry of Communication went into, just to ensure that her presence during festivities commemorating the event reflected reverence for a goddess. Not only were journalists supposed to subject themselves to official accreditation, but more importantly, her presence during the quasi-official event was made to assume the status of a presidential outing.
We should not forget what happened in Zimbabwe where ousted Robert Mugabe had contemplated handing over power to his wife. Moreover, the insipid conference to drum support for a constitutional provision to make the First Lady position a national emblem under the tutelage of no other than Fame Ndongo, University Professor, CPDM ideologue and Higher Education Minister is still fresh in our memories.
This warning is being sounded here on account of what the excesses of a 48-year old woman can do to an 85 year-old man. In terms of natural charm, Biya is said to have turned down all dissuasions from his supposed cronies against marrying Chantal. This, on its own, bespeaks the visceral grip she has on a husband not known to exert manly control over his wives.
This means that she can invoke any stunt to ensure that she is the prime source of inspiration to all her husband’s actions, be they official or private. As a matter of fact, the grapevine even has it that such influences have sometimes extended to determining who gets appointed or fired as Minister. But to be fair to Chantal, she is only taking advantage of the weaknesses of a system prodded by individuals instead of institutions.
This daughter of a timber merchant was certainly born with a golden spoon in her mouth. For her mother to have been chosen among the many women in the heart of the equatorial rainforest is not an issue to be dumped at the feet of providence. Mr. Vigoroux, her father, ordinarily would have seen many more beautiful and even better educated women, but he opted for Chantal’s mother just like Biya has opted for her. That is the work of God. It is also, gratifying to know that her charitable works have earned international acclaim, thereby bringing honour to Cameroon. However, it is nevertheless, no guarantee that her excesses, even if extolled by her somehow doting husband ought to be tolerated. Furthermore, is there any endowment fund from which she taps the resources that she uses to engrave her persona on the minds of Cameroonians and the international community?
More so, in a country where no distinction is made between the public till and the Head of State’s personal accretions from investments, the exploits of CERAC and the Chantal Biya Foundation may have been smokescreens to pamper the ego of a woman who has taken advantage of porous governance to establish herself as Cameroon’s Mother Theresa. For all we know, the cronyism and opacity that characterize her husband’s governance is highly present in both organizations.
Have we, at any time, stopped and reflected on the management of these institutions? Who are their auditors? Well, these might just be opportunities for sophisticated money laundering. The type that one of his current enfant cheri ministers had indulged in before coming into combined prominence and notoriety.
While extending kudos to the First Lady for at least putting smiles on the faces of many needy Cameroonians, the fear is that her undue intrusion into public space may be sending the wrong message, if at all it has not already done so. We are in a country in which unemployment is galloping. Citizens are increasingly finding it difficult to provide basic necessities like water, light, food and shelter for themselves and their families. It is therefore, unfathomable that each time she leaves the country, her retinue whose sole purpose is to massage her ego costs the country a fortune.
Mama Chantal, you can help Cameroonians by telling your husband that he is overdue his stay at the helm of state and, by that token, must take an honourable bow from the stage for the emergence of a new and rejuvenated Cameroon. Can Cameroonians count on you to foster their liberation from their current Catch-22?
By Ngoko Monyadowa

By conviction or political deftness, he has consistently displayed faith in the eventuality of a broad based national dialogue on the Anglophone problem.
The erudite and politically savvy Dr. Simon Munzu’s interest in a constitutional solution to the headache dates back to the 1990s when, as part of the triumvirate of Elad, Anyangwe and Munzu, he played a very active role in convening the All Anglophone Conference, AAC, and thereafter charted a road map for Anglophone emancipation.
Today, the troika has succumbed to dissuasive subterfuge of the Biya regime with Barrister Ekontang Elad vacillating between support for the Anglophone cause and neutrality. Prof. Carlson Anyangwe, on his part, has thrown his weight behind Ambazonia separatists, leaving Munzu as sole purveyor of a return to a two-state federation via dialogue.
Munzu, in his characteristic candour, has advocated frank, inclusive and comprehensive dialogue as the only viable solution to the Anglophone conundrum.
Going by his consignment of counselling to Cameroonians and the powers that be, nobody should be left out, including those who are now advocating separation.
He has, also, warned Anglophones not to be carried away by the illusion of United Nations, UN, support for a separate Southern Cameroons as is being bandied by some compatriots instead of heightening pressure on the Biya regime to see reason in advocacy for a return to Federalism as obtained in the immediate aftermath of the Foumban Conference.
The alluring prose and endearing witticism, coupled with strengthening conviction for a project that defies solution, makes The Rambler’s interview with one of Cameroon’s finest legal scholars, a cocktail to be savoured with relish.
(See page…)

You have consistently advocated a national dialogue since the current Anglophone crisis gathered steam in October 2016. Why the sing-song on dialogue when it looks like President Paul Biya is working on an alternative to the much parroted dialogue?
It is generally recognised that a frank, inclusive and comprehensive dialogue is the best pathway to a lasting solution to the Anglophone problem and to the current Anglophone crisis. The dialogue must be frank. This means that the parties to it have to be sincere to each other and that neither should set out to fool, trap or cheat the other. It must be inclusive, meaning that all stakeholders, regardless of the outcome that they are seeking, including independence for Southern Cameroons, should be invited to the dialogue and allowed freely to state their position. The dialogue must also be comprehensive. By this we mean that it must touch on all aspects of the domination, marginalisation, assimilation and takeover of the territory and people of Southern Cameroons (the Northwest and Southwest Regions) that Anglophones have experienced in the last 56 years and which they are complaining about today. The dialogue cannot be limited to just education and administration of justice, the two sectors that sparked off the current crisis in October and November 2016. A comprehensive dialogue would have to cover all areas of governance in our country – political, administrative, economic, judicial, social, cultural, etc. in which Anglophones experience domination, marginalization, assimilation and takeover, so that the grievances felt by Anglophones in all these domains can be addressed once and for all.
Since everyone recognises dialogue as the best way to sort out the mess in which our country is right now, many voices at home and abroad have repeatedly and insistently called for it. Prominent among them is President Paul Biya, notably in his New Year messages to the Nation of 31 December 2016 and 31 December 2017. It is disturbing to note, however, that even though the President recommends dialogue, he has, as you point out in your question, done nothing to initiate meaningful dialogue. He considers as dialogue the negotiations between the Government and the teachers and between the Government and lawyers that took place in December 2016 and January 2017 within the framework of the two Ad Hoc Committees that were set up by the Prime Minister. We all remember that those negotiations ended in the arrest and imprisonment for eight to nine months of some teachers’ and lawyers’ leaders, while others were forced into exile. That was not a dialogue. It did not lead the parties to a mutually agreed end to the crisis. President Biya also considers as dialogue the delegations of members of Government, political and traditional leaders and senior office holders that were despatched to the Southwest and Northwest Regions in October 2017 to ‘dialogue’ with the population of these two Regions. We all know that, in view of the manner in which those delegations conducted their mission, no meaningful dialogue took place on those occasions. These forms of ‘dialogue’ have not ended the Anglophone crisis. They could not have done so because they were not frank, inclusive and comprehensive. We still need to have a meaningful national dialogue on the Anglophone problem in Cameroon.

Can violence and dialogue go together in the search for a solution to the same problem?
Obviously, dialogue and violence cannot be applied at the same time to resolve the same problem. All conflicts can be resolved through dialogue. Therefore, every effort should be made to resolve all conflicts peacefully through dialogue. Those who resort to violence to resolve a conflict always find that, after a long or short period of loss of lives and livelihoods for many citizens, often the innocent, they still have to dialogue in order to arrive at a final resolution of the conflict. If, after using violence and causing so much loss of life, destruction of property and massive violations of human rights, the protagonists still end up engaging in dialogue, why not engage in dialogue at the outset and thus avoid all those negative consequences of violence, many of which affect innocent citizens? No, violence and dialogue cannot go together in the search for a solution to the same problem. In all situations, dialogue, not violence, should be used to resolve the conflict.

Is the belief that the ‘international community’, the UN and some big Western nations are going to step in and ‘grant independence’ to Southern Cameroons just a dream? Is such a belief justified, plausible?
Such a belief is unjustified. It is just a dream that may never come true. Some Anglophone Cameroonians are clamouring for the ‘restoration’ of the ‘independence’ of British Southern Cameroons. They rely on a distortion of the history of decolonization of the British Southern Cameroons and claim that the 1961 union between the Anglophone territory of British Southern Cameroons and the Francophone territory of Republic of Cameroon has no legal basis. They blame the international community, especially, the United Nations, the United Kingdom and France, for the fate that has befallen the territory and people of British Southern Cameroons since October 1, 1961. Paradoxically, these are the same persons who deceive our people that the international community will come in and grant independence to the Southwest and Northwest Regions of Cameroon. This is just an illusion and a deliberate lie. For the international community, the people of British Southern Cameroons voted in a valid plebiscite on February 11, 1961, to achieve independence by joining Republic of Cameroon. On the same day, the people of British Northern Cameroons voted in a separate and valid plebiscite to achieve independence by joining the Federation of Nigeria. Northern Cameroons joined the Federation of Nigeria on June 1, 1961 and thereby achieved independence. Southern Cameroons joined Republic of Cameroon on October 1, 1961 and thereby also achieved independence. On that same day, both Southern Cameroons and Republic of Cameroon gave up their respective independence in order to form a new independent and sovereign state, the Federal Republic of Cameroon, within which they both became two federated states of equal status, the federated state of West Cameroon and the federated state of East Cameroon, respectively. The international community considers everything that has happened thereafter in the territory of the Federal Republic of Cameroon, including the change of name of the territory and all modifications in its constitutional and administrative arrangements, as an internal matter for Cameroonians. Southern Cameroons gave up the independence that it achieved on October 1, 1961 when on that same day it opted to become the Federated state of West Cameroon within the Federal Republic of Cameroon. The international community is not going to come in, nearly 60 years later, to ‘restore’ that independence. Those who want to ‘restore’ the independence of Southern Cameroons know that they can only achieve their objective by waging a war of secession from the union that came into being on October 1, 1961. The international community is not in a position to grant independence to the former British Southern Cameroons for a second time.

In a recent message that you addressed to the people of Cameroon, especially, those of the Northwest and Southwest Regions, you harped on the need to save the union and to work towards a federation rather than complete break-up of the union. Are you, as far as the ‘Ambazonians’ are concerned, not just crying in the rain?
The persons you call ‘Ambazonians’ stand for the break-up of the 1961 union of Anglophone British Southern Cameroons and Francophone Republic of Cameroon and the ‘restoration’, as they call it, of the ‘independence’ of the territory of the former British Southern Cameroons that they have renamed ‘Ambazonia’. Considering that the two territories of the former British Southern Cameroons and the former Republic of Cameroon have lived together for nearly 60 years since they united on 1 October 1961, we need not go to the extreme of breaking up the union. We should insist upon a return to the original intent of administering the union as a federation in which the two founding territories have equal status. If we succeed to obtain this, we will end the domination, marginalization, assimilation and impending takeover of the territory and people of the former British Southern Cameroons. We will do this without having to break up the union. I am convinced that if you ask the people of the Southwest and Northwest Regions to choose between a peaceful return to the federal system through dialogue and negotiation and obtaining independence through years and even decades of war, they would choose a peaceful return to federation. To die-hard ‘Ambazonians’, anything short of breaking up the 1961 union may sound like just crying in the rain, as you put it. But to the overwhelming majority of our people, it sounds differently.

Very recently, President Biya reshuffled his cabinet, appointing Anglophones to full minister positions in two key ministries – territorial administration and secondary education. Does this measure address the grievances of the Anglophones?
These appointments are a clear indication that the governing elites in Yaounde are feeling the effect of the relentless peaceful resistance that the people of the Northwest and Southwest Regions have put up for 17 months now and which they are prepared to continue until the ‘Anglophone problem’ is addressed through a genuine and meaningful national dialogue. Prominent among the grievances of Anglophones is the phenomenon of ‘marginalization’, which involves keeping Anglophones away from decision-making centres at all levels – national, Regional, Divisional, local. One of the manifestations of marginalization lies in the fact that, in 56 years since the union of 1 October 1961, no Anglophone has ever been appointed as a full minister at the head of any of the strategic ministries, whose importance is depicted by the French expression of ‘ministeres de souverainete’, in charge of domains such as defence, territorial administration, finance, external relations, economy and plan, etc. On Friday, March 2, for the first time since 1 October 1961, an Anglophone was appointed to head a ‘ministere de souverainete’, namely, the Ministry of Territorial Administration. This appointment was undoubtedly prompted by the pressure exerted by Anglophones through the protracted peaceful resistance that they have pursued without interruption since October 2016. Does it address the grievances of the Anglophones? No, it does not, for at least two reasons. First, there is the controversial character of the person who has been appointed to that post. As is well known, the flames of this crisis were stoked from the very beginning by the provocative and dismissive rhetoric of Mr Paul Atanga Nji, who vehemently denied, and continues to deny, the existence of the ‘Anglophone problem’. No one who denies the existence of a problem can be relied upon to solve it. Secondly, as I said in reply to one of your earlier questions, the grievances of the Anglophones relate to domination, marginalization, assimilation and takeover in an array of domains of our country’s governance. Therefore, an isolated act such as the appointment of one or two Anglophones to head key ministries is far from sufficient to address the grievances of the Anglophones.

Put in Mr Biya’s position, what would you do to address the current Anglophone crisis?
In the position of the President of the Republic and Head of State, I would be guided in my approach to the current Anglophone crisis by the paramount necessity to hold the nation together while effectively addressing the genuine grievances of the Anglophones. First, I would have to deduce from the long, peaceful resistance by the people of the Northwest and Southwest Regions that there does, indeed, exist an ‘Anglophone problem.’ To get an understanding of the full measure of Anglophone grievances, I would convene a national dialogue on the Anglophone problem in which I would personally participate. I would ensure that the dialogue is frank, inclusive and comprehensive as I explained earlier, and that it is conducted in such a manner that Cameroonians come to fully understand the ‘Anglophone problem’ in all its dimensions. From a full understanding of the problem I would direct that a solution be proposed that would bring about the cessation of the domination, marginalization, assimilation and takeover of the territory and people of the Southwest and Northwest Regions in all spheres of public life and institutional governance. Recognizing that this would entail a return to the federal system of Government in our country, I would engage and quickly complete the process for such return.

Is President Biya constitutionally empowered, or by any means right when he unilaterally declares that the present structure of the nation is not negotiable?
The form the state is governed by the Constitution, not by the President of the Republic. The Constitution that is in force today provides in Article 1 (2) that “The Republic of Cameroon shall be a decentralized Unitary State.” Like all other articles of the constitution, article 1 (2) can be modified at any time to provide for any form of the State that the Cameroonian people choose to have. For example, it can be amended to provide that Cameroon shall be an empire or a monarchy or a federation or a Centralized Unitary State, if the Cameroonian people so choose. Let’s not forget that, following Reunification in 1961 Cameroon became constitutionally a Federation. In 1972, the constitution was amended to make Cameroon a centralized Unitary State. If the Cameroonian people so desire, they can alter Article 1 (2) of the constitution in 2018 to make Cameroon a Federal Republic again.
In a democratic republic, any constitutional reform that affects the form of the state is preceded by a general public debate among citizens. Cameroon is a democratic republic as stipulated by Article 1 (2) of our constitution.
Furthermore, the constitution guarantees Cameroonian citizens freedom of expression. They are exercising this freedom when they publicly discuss the form of the State. Under our law, the President of the Republic, who is neither a monarch nor an emperor, is under, not above, the constitution. He must act within, not outside it. Neither the constitution nor any other law of the land gives the President of the Republic power to deprive Cameroonians of their constitutional right to discuss the form of the state with a view to amending Article 1 (2) of the constitution that is subject to amendment like any other article of our country’s constitution.
Interviewed by Charlie Ndi Chia

(An in-depth comparative analysis of the perennial struggle by the people of Southern Cameroons to wrestle their sovereignty after 158 years and the malign erosion of Britain’s sovereignty during her brief stay of 43 years in Europe.)

By Ojong Clement Akem

Minor infringements on British sovereignty provoked outrage and triggered BREXIT, whereas they have refused to repair the damage inflicted on the people of Southern Cameroons by selling them into slavery to La Republique.

This research endeavour is an attempt to draw parallels with what had happened in the United Kingdom on June 23, 2016, and ask why the people of Britain have failed to notice the injustice their Government had imposed on our people (by refusing them independence). This exercise is intended to educate our people, the British public and our neighbours. It will be presented in two parts.

PART I

INTRODUCTION

“A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance” (Jawaharal Nehru – at midnight on August 14th 1948, on the eve of Indian Independence).

That moment should have come for Southern Cameroons on October 1st, 1961, but a conspiracy of three exogenous forces (the creation of the Unification Movement by the East Cameroon Workers Union in Kumba in alliance with the U.P.C. & R.D.A, the fear of communism (U.P.C & R.D.A were allied to the Soviet communist party) and perhaps of more significance, the non respect by Britain of Her obligations under Article 76 of the Trusteeship Council Agreement), all combined to derail the prospects for our independence. We are sure the sovereignty of Southern Cameroons will soon be installed.

One of the things we humans have in common is a reluctance to discard the past, and a willingness to look back for whatever may still fit in our lives (Mary Catherine Beteson 1990). Our generation yearns to prove itself – and, in proving itself, to accomplish great things for our people. Researching, composing and publishing this narrative involves a continual reimaging of the future of our territory, her people, and the reinterpretation of our past so as to give meaning to our quest for a bright future – the coming of the sovereignty of Southern Cameroons.

The territory and homeland of our people has been occupied for 158 years (1858–2016), by European intruders and by an illegal neighbour to the East. However, BREXIT has shattered the myth. It has demonstrated, that “PEOPLE POWER”, can, and should reverse any treaty agreements that erode (or in the case of Southern Cameroons), takes away your sovereignty.

We lay emphasis on the fact that memory is crucial in shaping our identity, and can motivate us in the face of the challenges we have faced over the years, the driving force behind this researched article is to educate our people about the reality of the nation of Southern Cameroons which has sometimes been questioned by usurpers.

We have been inspired by three historic events which have rekindled our hope, the hope that has never been extinguished as far as regaining our sovereignty is concerned. The 2009 recognition by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ rights that “the people of Southern Cameroons,” qualify to be referred to as a “PEOPLE” (cf 45th Ordinary Session Banjul Gambia, 13-27 May 2009).

The Green Tree Accord signed by the Presidents of the Federal Republic of Nigeria Olusegun Obasanjo and the Republic of Cameroon Paul Biya witnessed by Mr. KOFI Annan, former Secretary General of the United Nations, UN. The signatories of this accord accepted the clause which demanded “that each country will respect its boundaries as they stood at independence” (October 1st, 1961 for Nigeria, and January 1st 1960, for the Republic of Cameroon). The boundary treaties exist.

Then on 23 June 2016, in a referendum, the people of Britain voted to leave the European Union. BREXIT was a defiance of international treaty obligations, a defining moment which demonstrated, that anything that infringes upon the SOVEREIGNTY of a nation can, and should be nullified by a vote of “the people.”

The February 11, 1961, plebiscite vote to create a Union with our neighbour produced a stillbirth, so we adopted the motto, “the force of argument, not the argument of force” to educate our neighbour about the wisdom to part ways. Now that BREXIT has cleared the way, what is our option?

This researched article is devoted to, and dedicated to the 13 selfless, fearless nationalists from Southern Cameroons who risked everything by walking out in block of the Eastern Regional House of Assembly in Enugu. Their action created a political crisis and forced the British Government to grant self Government to Southern Cameroons in 1953. Their statues will be erected at the Independence Square to immortalize them.

Historical Background: Timeline

This timeline chronicles in summary form, the events that have marked the 158 years of occupation of our territory, together with the ascendant loss of power, freedom and sovereignty and our determination to end this state of affairs once and for all, by achieving our sovereignty. This is perhaps the longest occupation of an African country by Europeans, and an illegal neighbour:

2.1. The year 1858 marked the beginning of the intrusion by foreigners into our territory under our village chiefs or kings. This land gained international status in 1922 when it became the League of Nations Mandated territory – Southern Cameroons.

2.2. The first British Occupation lasted from 1858 to 1887.

This was confined to coastal villages which included Douala, Bimbia and Victoria. Their main goal was trade.

2.3. German occupation 1884 – 1914

The expedition was led by the warship Möwe under Dr. Nightingale and arrived the coast of our territory on 12 July, 1884 and by July 14, 1884, the Germans signed a treaty with chiefs Bell, Akwa and Deido granting rights of sovereignty, legislation and management over their respective countries (note that the word countries referred to the territories that were under the rule of the above chiefs. However, the Germans eventually extended their dominance over the entire country which became known as German Kamerun. They fought wars where they met resistance, like with the Bakweri people for the capture of Buea, the Bali people fought against Zintgraf, while Fontem fought against Gustaf Conrad. These battles took enormous tolls on our people and the Germans (witness the graves and tombstones in these chiefdoms).

By 1907 there were 800 Germans, 6 Austrians, 16 Swiss, 3 Dutch, 58 English, 2 Norwegians, 43 Americans, 3 Spanish, 8 Portuguese, 3 Russians, 1 Belgian, 3 French, 4 Swedes and 1 Japanese, giving a total of 1010 foreigners of different nationalities (cf appendix 1 W033/448). These foreigners and the population were guarded by German troops distributed across the country (cf distribution of troops in April 1907 p87 and 88 W033/448).

2.3.1. In 1905 – 1906 a joint Anglo-German Commission matriculated the boundary between Southern Nigeria and the Cameroons. It runs from the mouth of the Akwayafe River for about 85 miles. The agreement between the United Kingdom and Germany respecting the boundary between the British and German territories from Yola to Lake Chad was signed in London on March 19, 1906. This boundary goes through the so-called “Yola arc”, which has been fixed by the arrangement concluded in August 1903, was, with but slight modifications, allowed to hold good (cf W033/448 p6).

2.3.2. On 28 July, 1919 Britain, France and Germany signed the Versailles Peace Treaty at Le Palais De Galeries in Versailles France. This brought to an end German occupation of Kamerun after their defeat in World War 1.

1916 TO 1946 BRITISH ADMINISTRATION UNDER THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS. THE INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION OF SOUTHERN CAMEROONS.

We must emphasize that Southern Cameroons was being administered as a mandated territory of the League of Nations NOT A COLONY. In 1922, Southern Cameroons gained International Status as a Mandated Territory of the League of Nations and was placed under the tutelage of the British Government.

The other Mandated Territories were; French East Cameroon, Tanganyika, Zanzibar, Papua New Guinea, British Togoland, French Togo, Rwanda, Burundi and South West Africa. The question may be asked, why all other mandated territories gained their independence, while Britain sent Southern Cameroons into slavery?? There is a latin axiom “Nemo dat quod non habet” (you cannot give what you do not have), Her Majesty’s Government defied logic by transferring Southern Cameroons to the Republic of Cameroun (It was not her colony). This monumental error of judgement MUST be urgently rectified and Southern Cameroons returned to its legal owners “THE PEOPLE”.

In December 1933, the Nigerian surveys, Lagos drew and reproduced the orographical map of Nigeria and Southern Cameroons under British Administration in the scale of 1:3000 000 or 1 inch to 47,35 miles showing the International boundaries of Southern Cameroons and Nigeria (perhaps it was this map that proved to the International Court of Justice at the Heague that Bakasi Peninsular belongs to Southern Cameroons, not Nigeria or La Republique).

On the May 18, 1940, Protocol No. 11 was drawn up in Victoria between Monsieur George Verges Administrateur en chef des colonies and Mr. J.G.C. Allen, District officer, Nigerian Administrative service, commissioner appointed for the delimitation of the Anglo-French Cameroons boundary. The protocol was signed on behalf of the French Government by the French commissioner and for the British by the British commissioner (cf FO37/32066 page 11). This protocol closed the loop on the question of boundaries and proves that Southern Cameroons has identified boundary demarcation that separates her territory from Nigeria in the West and East Cameroon to the East. It is a nation state period (not part of another country).

1946 – 1953 British Administration of the United Nations Trusteeship Council Territory (NOT A COLONY OF BRITAIN)

In 1946, Britain signed Article 76 of the charter of the United Nations designating her as the Administering Authority for Southern Cameroons. This article set out the obligations of the British Government.

The British Consul General on January 24, 1952 in a confidential letter addressed to the foreign office, (cf paragraph 18 ref. F037/10/390) clarified as follows: Our obligations under article 76 of the charter of the United Nations are: “To promote the political, economic, social, and educational advancement of the inhabitants of the Trust territories, and their progressive development towards SELF-GOVERNMENT OR INDEPENDENCE as may be appropriate to the particular circumstance of each territory and its people and the FREELY EXPRESSED WISHES OF THE PEOPLES CONCERNED, and as may be provided by the terms of each trusteeship agreement”.

Unfortunately, despite the precision, logical and unambiguous manner in which the mandate was drafted, the British Government still found a way to circumvent article 76 (read paragraph 18 p7 of the letter referred to), and what follows below.

“The British view is that in the particular circumstance of the British Cameroons the progressive development of their inhabitants towards self-government or independence may most appropriate be promoted in association with the socially advanced protectorate of Nigeria. The British Delegation has impressed this view with consistent firmness and frankness upon the Trusteeship council, and the council has been obliged to accept it, grudgingly”.

This attempt to derail the determination of the people of Southern Cameroons to achieve self government was emphasized in paragraph 8, page 3. “The failure of the British Cameroons people in the course of the review of the constitution to achieve Regional Status, in spite of the guarantees they have received for representation in the central, as well as the Eastern Regional legislature, automatically inclines the politically conscious elements in Southern Cameroons to turn towards the prospect of union with French Cameroons. In fact, “we have deliberately accepted the possibility of embarrassment from a unification movement as part of the price to be paid for our success, during the review of the constitution, in restraining Cameroons nationalist demands in the interest of the over-riding policy of consolidating three strong regions in Nigeria’, but Southern Cameroons was not a British Colony. The British Government was redefining the terms of reference of Article 76 which they had already signed. How dishonest was this?

Enters the East Cameroonians to destabilize Southern Cameroons

THE UNIFICATION MOVEMENT A DANGER

In summary form, the Unification Movement was conceived, designed by the French East Cameroonians, hatched in East Cameroon, and transported to Kumba were it was born under the midwifery of the French Cameroons Welfare Union of the Cameroons Development Cooperation C.D.C.

The President of the Movement was Mr. R.J. DIBONGE (President of the French Cameroons Workers Union, Vice President Chief Joseph FORMIYEN, and Secretary Mr. N.N. MBILE. The movement was sponsored by the representatives of the Rassemblement Democratique Africaine R.D.A, and Union of Population of Cameroon U.P.C (cf paragraphs 14,15 and 16 of the confidential letter no 5 referenced 5/10/52 no 24/173 of the British Consulate General Brazzaville French Equatorial Africa addressed to the foreign office F0371/10/390.

Without receiving any mandate from the people of Southern Cameroons the unification movement addressed secret petitions to the Trusteeship Council on the possible unification of Southern Cameroons with East Cameroon (attempts to divert our independence).

Unfortunately, the R.D.A and the UPC were known allies of the Soviet Communist Party (communism was enemy No.1 in the Western World). To counter this movement, the British intensified their deliberate attempts to annex Southern Cameroons to Eastern Nigeria in gross violation of their treaty obligations under article 76 of the UN charter (witness item 8… “the British view…)”.

The people of Southern Cameroons now had two forces to battle against. Those whom we had accepted as refugees fleeing oppression from their dictatorial masters, had prepared a political vendetta against the innocent people of Southern Cameroons because they were refused voting in the C.D.C Workers’ Unions (refugees have no voting rights in the host country). We emphasize that by 1937, there were 4343 East Cameroonian in the labour force in Victoria Division alone (cf C.O.582/228/2 p137).

Our people had accepted these refugees, without knowing, that, they were Trojan horses that had been smuggled into our territory to sow the seeds of our future annexation to their country of East Cameroon. The British colonial forces were the others we had to confront (the British began to deliberately forget that Southern Cameroons was a UN Trusteeship Territory not their colony).

This British refusal to abide by the terns of Article 76 of the UN charter provoked a political crisis in the Eastern Regional House of Assembly in Enugu. In 1953, all the 13 representatives of the Southern Cameroons in the House walked out as a block. This idea had immense impact on the struggle four our independence. All the cunningly woven arguments which the British were advancing for our annexation to Nigeria were brushed aside.

The names of these confident, self esteemed and patriotic leaders who represented all constituencies in Southern Cameroons shall be engraved in gold, under their statues, that shall be erected upon our liberation at our independence squares. We therefore cite them here for posterity because they forced the British Government to reluctantly grant Southern Cameroons self government. Here then are the heroes: Hon. Emmanuel M.L. Endeley of Buea, Hon. Martin N. Foju of Bangwa, Hon. John Ngu Foncha of Bamenda, Hon. Sampson A. George of Mamfe, Hon. S.T. Muna of Mbengwi/Ngembu, Hon. Rev. J.C. Kangsen of Mbem, Hon. V.T. Lainjo of Kumbo, Hon. A.T. Ngalla of Ndu, Hon. R.N. Charley of Tombel/Bakossi, Prince Sama C. Ndi of Kom, Hon. J.T. Ndze of Tabenken, Hon. N.N. Mbile of Ngolo-Batanga and Hon. Motomby Woleta of Victoria.

These leaders, upon returning to Southern Cameroons mobilized all the influential traditional rulers, opinion leaders and the elites to attend the historic Mamfe conference, which took place May 22 – 24, 1953. They brainstormed on the intrigues, deceit and flattery which our people have been subjected to and ruled out all options except independence that must be granted to our people.

That conference will be remembered for the prophetic, and wisdom packed words of advice from the natural traditional ruler of Bafut Abumbi I. He expressed dismay about any suggestion, or proposal that may delay our independence. Here is what he said; “Joining Nigeria was like jumping into the ocean, but joining East Cameroon was like running into a blazing fire”. We were forced against our own deep convictions and free wills to accept the option of joining la Republique and, we have been burning ever since.

The Mamfe conference produced a compelling letter based on irrefutable statements of facts, addressed to the Secretary of State for colonies, demanding the creation of a separate and autonomous legislation for the Trusteeship Territory of Southern Cameroons, as stated in the mandate.

On May 28, 1953, Dr. E.M.L. Endeley left Lagos, Nigeria for London with the petition which he delivered to the Secretary of State for colonies.

Now, if we admit, as historians do, that great men lead humanity to the attainment of their ends, then, the 13 Southern Cameroonians who risked their lives and triggered the process which resulted in the granting of self-government, were indeed great men.

1954 TO 1961 THE GOLDEN AGE SELF-GOVERNMENT

The two essentials for “representative” democracy are the freedom of the individual, and the regular opportunity for him to join with his fellows in replacing, or reinstating the government of his country by means of the ballot-box and without recourse to assassinations or uprisings.

In 1954, following the granting of self-government to Southern Cameroons, a general election was organized. The Kamerun National Congress K.N.C of Dr. Endeley won the election. Legal Institutions of Government were established, the Assembly, House of chiefs and the Government Ministries. Dr Endeley became the first Prime Minister of Southern Cameroons.

However, following the 1957 constitution of the London Conference, membership of the House of Assembly was increased from 14 to 26 seats. The Assembly was dissolved and a new general election was convened for January 24, 1959.

The Kamerun National Democratic Party K.N.D.P led by Mr. John Ngu Foncha won the election. Dr Endeley conceded defeat, congratulated Mr Foncha who became the second Prime Minister of Southern Cameroons. They say, ‘’power is the combined wills of the masses transferred by their expressed or tacit consent to the rulers by the masses in a democracy”. These transfers took place in 1954 and 1959.

Leo Tolstoy wrote, “The subject of history is the life of peoples and humanity”. African history, must therefore record the two transfers of powers from one Prime Minister to the other which took place in Southern Cameroons between 1954 and 1959 as the VICTORY OF TRUE DEMOCRACY in AFRICA. The seeds of representative democracy were firmly planted in Southern Cameroons. This was quickly followed by the consolidation of economic and financial institutions, the Cameroon Bank, the Southern Cameroons Marketing Board (constituted by Farmers’ Co-operatives), the Cameroon Development Cooperation C.D.C – an inherited statutory corporation, the Southern Cameroons Power Company – POWERCAM and many others. It must be mentioned here that the hydro electric power station in Yoke was conceived, designed and built by a Southern Cameroon Electrical Engineering – Mr. Mbiwan.

THE PLEBICSITE. The Decline and slow death of Southern Cameroons

This was a poisonous gift imposed on the people of Southern Cameroons, in violation of the principles and objectives that motivated the creation of the League of Nations. One of these principles was made public by the American President Woodrow Wilson while addressing the joint session of the two Houses of the American Congress on January 8, 1918. He said, and we quote, “A general association of nations should be formed on the basis of covenants designed to create MUTUAL GUARANTEE of political independence and, territorial integrity of states, large and small equally”. This was the corner stone for the creation of the League of Nations on January 10, 1920, and subsequently the United Nations.

The non respect of this secret pact has plunged the world into chaos and interminable wars. The two questions which were imposed on the people of Southern Cameroons were motivated by British greed and the French Cameroons Workers Union – the vampires who had descended into Southern Cameroons as refugees turned into Trojan horses to derail our quest for independence. These refugees had high jacked our political process through the unification movement and their association with the communist further complicated our quest for independence.

It was these three exogenous forces acting from different directions that combined to condemn Southern Cameroonians to vote on how they wished to be executed, by drowning in the sea, or by burning in an eternal fire – we chose the latter, from the prophetic declaration that has since been vindicated.

THE FOUMBAN CONSTITUIONAL CONFERENCE WAS DESIGNED TO FAIL

On 17 July 1961 Ahmadu Babatura Ahidjo – President of the Republic of Cameroun opened the constitutional conference in Foumban, without a representative of the UN that should have chaired the talks or that of Britain, the Administering authority of Southern Cameroons (still a Trusteeship Territory of the UN).

This ran against the grain, because the “law of natural justice forbids any man from being the Judge in his own case”. President Ahidjo was therefore “NOT qualified” to preside over the constitutional negotiations between his country La Republique and the self-governing Trust Territory of Southern Cameroons.

However, the Southern Cameroons delegation was led by Prime Minister John Ngu Foncha, accompanied by Dr Emmanuel Endeley, leader of the opposition and their entourage.

Ahidjo tabled the draft constitution and announced that the negotiation would last just two days. Immediately, the Southern Cameroons delegation smelt the rat. Their request that the talks should last three weeks based on their rich experiences gained during the constitutional conferences in London and Lagos (Richards, 1946, Macpherson, 1951, Littleton, 1954 – cf Fonkem Achankeng 2014), was rejected out of hand.

One of the issues that Ahidjo rejected outright was the demand from the Southern Cameroons delegation to maintain their Police Force and have their own army, within the Federation.

Records have it documented, that the Southern Cameroons delegation put forward the following amendments to the draft; (a) the flag, (b) National Anthem (c) Motto (d) Federal Capital to be in Douala (e) Electoral maturity at 21 years, (f) Secret ballot (g) powers and attributions of the Federal President (h) Presidential Mandate Limited to two terms (i) a Federal Assembly made up of a National Assembly and a Senate (j) double nationality (k) Primary and Higher Education System and (l) cancellation of the word INDIVISIBLE from the constitution.

What is important is that the constitutional conference did not adopt a constitution, and the Southern Cameroons House of Assembly and the House of Chiefs did not rectify any constitution, because the Foumban conference had not produced any.

It must be restated that the Foumban Constitutional Conference was convened in violation of the London Conference agreement of October 10 – 13 1960, UN Doc T/1556 p40, UN resolution A/C.4/l685 of April 18, 1961 the Landmark UN resolution on the concept of independence by joining 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 updated 15/12/1960 by UN resolution 1541 (XV). Given the above violations can the resultant constitution drawn by Ahidjo be considered binding on Southern Cameroon?

The Southern Cameroonian delegation went to Foumban with open hearts, in anticipation that by blending together, both nations would one day form the foundation stone of African Unity. It was not to be-Ahidjo’s delegation came with a hidden agenda to lure the Southern Cameroonians into total submission of their identities. They failed because the constitutional talks were reduced to a stalemate. There is no written agreement as required by Article 102 of the UN chartter at the UN Secretariat to prove that Southern Cameroons and La Republique joined.

1961 – 2016 THE ILLEGAL OCCUPATION OF SOUTHERN CAMEROONS BY HER NEIGHBOUR

On the 30 September, 1961, at the invitation of Her Majesty’s Government, in violation of their obligations clearly laid out in Article 76 of the Trusteeship Agreement, Ahidjo moved in military forces and illegally occupied a United Nations Trust Territory of Southern Cameroons. Jeffrey Hughes has repeatedly asked; ʺWhy did the British Government abandon the people of Southern Cameroons in such great haste, failing to ensure an appropriate negotiating body in the post Plebiscite period in 1961 and continue to be negative to the Southern Cameroonian subsequent request for sponsorship to the United Nations for their independence, in accordance with the United Nations charter 76b and the United Nations charter 1514 (XV)ʺ (cf Jeffrey Hughes 1999 p 158).

ʺBREXITʺ has given us the answer, that when a people find out, that their sovereignty has been USURPED, they can vote to repel the obstacle. Britain did not seek authorization from the other member states of EU or the UN before launching their referendum.

The illegal occupation of Southern Cameroons has lasted more than half a century. It is time to vote and take back our sovereignty too. The occupation MUST END.

THE OCCUPATION STRANGLED OUR DEVELOPMENT

They say knowledge is power. Unfortunately, ignorance has a way of robbing people of their rights, privileges and duties. It enslaves rather than liberates the mind. It brings about stagnation, and this explains why dictators are allergic to true intellectuals. Ignorance has delayed our liberation.

Ahidjo’s first administrative edict was the abolition of all the Teachers’ Training Colleges, followed up by the change of name from Southern Cameroons which has international boundaries to, West Cameroon, an anonymous state. He was laying the groundwork for the complete annexation of our territory, by blind fooling us with names.

He then suspended the production of electric energy from the Yoke hydro-electric power generation station, to force our people import electricity from Edea (located about 160km from Yoke). They destroyed our community Development System which together with the Swiss Technical Assistance ensured the installation of pipe born water in our villages. Transferred the headquarters of Cameroon Bank from Victoria to Yaounde, Southern Cameroons Marketing Board to Douala and emptied the cash savings of our farmers estimated at about 78 billion CFA, at the time. Our farmers have been reduced to beggars.

They destroyed our road network infrastructure too. Evidence exists to show that in 1961 there were 272km of paved roads in Southern Cameroons and 473km in East Cameroons. Our major streets were also paved in Victoria, Tiko, Buea, Kumba, Mamfe, Bamenda, Wum and Banso – Kumbo. The Public Works Department P.W.D stationed maintenance teams along the roads to guarantee all seasonal passage. Most of these roads and streets lie bare today from neglect. (To be continued)

http://theramblercameroon.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/The-rambler-header-.fw_.png00Asonganyi Nesterhttp://theramblercameroon.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/The-rambler-header-.fw_.pngAsonganyi Nester2018-02-07 11:18:582018-02-07 11:24:21A crisis of sovereignty in Southern Cameroons and the United Kingdom

About two years ago, the word dialogue, stealthily crept into the political lexicon of Cameroon. President Paul Biya intoned it. His appointees sang it like parrots even if many of them did not buy into the concept.

Dialogue was said to be the panacea that should put paid to the Anglophone crisis. But from all indications a principal party to the dialogue was either stone deaf or simply imagined that it was better carried out with both the stick and the carrot. Better still, that the gendarme and the gun were better instruments of dialogue than the round table.

Certain compatriots were named and tagged. Arrests were perpetrated, certain members of the opposing side were chased into exile and some even summarily killed. The situation got out of hand and dialogue transformed to hard times for the “terrorists and secessionists” so tagged.

About two weeks ago, Communication Minister, Issa Tchiroma, like the Physicist, Archimedes of the Eureka fame, ran out of his bath stark naked more or less, to announce that “terrorists and secessionists earlier arrested in Nigeria had been handed over to Cameroonian judicial authorities.”

The Rambler was prompted by Tchiroma’s announcement to ask its respondents if this action on its own would put paid to the festering crisis or reignite the much parroted dialogue.

What they state could be very instructive to whether this dialogue and not outright military bravado is the true answer to Cameroon’s awful socio-political plight.

The solution is dialogue

I strongly propose that now that the Government of Cameroon has hunted down and is keeping the secessionist leaders, it is time they sit at a table together and open the so called dialogue that they have been propagating. This will even be advantageous because it shall be a litmus test to Cameroon’s democracy.

Nancy Fuma, Teacher Bamenda

Anglophones should constitute new leaders to carry on the struggle

I do not even know whether the said leaders are dead or alive. Despite the fact Government media has been singing their capture and extradition to Cameroon, we have not even seen their pictures. I propose that the Anglophones should constitute themselves again and let new leaders emerge and carry on the struggle.

Gwendolyn, Nsang Trader Bamenda

Gov’t should immediately announce dialogue

Now that the Government has them, it should immediately announce dialogue and call for an immediate ceasefire so that all these brutal killings that have gained notoriety these days can end.

Christopher Agu, IT specialist Bamenda

There’s no way forward as long as those leaders remain in custody

They should at least make a public presentation of these leaders, interview them on why they will want to separate and even find out from them what needs to be done to maintain the status quo.

I will tell you there is no way forward to solving this problem as long as those leaders remain under custody. See the abduction of those leaders, permit me use the word abduction because if they were arrested they would have at least shown us images. By doing what they are doing, Government is radicalizing supporters of this course more than ever. Maybe the Government thought that keeping those leaders will render followers weak, but you have seen and heard of attacks here and there. It only tells us that Ambazonians are determined in death or life to have their freedom. If there will be any way forward then let them release those leaders in their keeping.

Joseph Ntui, History Teacher Bamenda

Gov’t should bring them to dialogue table

Talking about way forward of the crisis because leaders are in Government custody is a broad situation to analyze. Why do I say so? Firstly, you must have understood by now that this crisis is far more than what Government thinks is in the hands of Mr. Julius Ayuk Tabe and others. If the situation were so, then since after their arrest there would have been peace in the country but contrarily the number of attacks has instead increased with both sides suffering. Yet their being in custody without gainsaying can only be one step solution to the crisis by bringing them to dialogue table. But think of those who lost loved ones, farmlands and even villages. How will Government compensate them because if they are ignored the crisis will never end.

Ngasi Jacob, farmer Kumba

Let powers that be call for dialogue

The only way forward now is dialogue. The Government has always talked of dialogue. International organisations and even Presidents of neighboring countries have cautioned on dialogue. Even the President in his end of year speech talked of dialogue. It’s going to be a month by Monday since the leaders were arrested in Nigeria but nothing is being said about dialogue again. I wonder how much time we are they going to take when soldiers and innocent civilians keep dying. I heard the Government’s spokesman the other day talking about them facing justice for their crimes. I bet you if they go to that direction, I smell Rwandan experience of genocide in Cameroon. Let the powers that be call for dialogue.

Williams Mbohteh, Kumba

Gov’t should release those in detention and then dialogue

The way forward now is that Government should first release those in detention before bringing about dialogue. Because if they talk dialogue now when the leaders are still jailed it will be as though they are forcing options on Southern Cameroonians. Besides, if those leaders are not released no one will even be interested in talking. All the killings on both sides should stop.

Celia Ebako student, Kumba

We need a national dialogue

The Anglophone crisis has never been about secessionists or the secessionist movement. This thing started in November 2016 with teachers and lawyers and the general population. There was a dialogue put in place before Government arrested all the genuine leaders. I think Government should go back to the negotiation table back with those they started the dialogue and bring all the other leaders, for a national dialogue. People are dying in the (Anglophone) Regions because we want to solve this crisis through war.

Emmanuel Achanyi, Agricultural Engineer, Douala

Let us review the terms of our coexistence

There is nothing Government can do to stop the movement whether they arrest all Anglophones or not. The message is clear and has been sent to Yaoundé, no form of arrests will intimidate Anglophones. The arrest of consortium leaders did not change anything so the arrest of the secessionist leaders will not change the situation on ground. I think some Government forces just want to see the situation on the ground continue because some of them are benefiting from it. The only way a solution can be found to this crisis is an international mediation supervised by the United Nations to review the terms of our coexistence. Anything short of that will be a failure because no form of arrests, intimidation, violence or torture will ever suppress the Anglophone feeling.

Charles Mafeh, photographer

Proper and genuine dialogue

I don’t know if the arrest of the secessionist leaders can solve anything in this crisis. We see that fighting has been ongoing; people continue to die every day in the Southwest and Northwest Regions despite the arrests. Arresting people is not the only solution, but if Government thinks it is a solution, then let us wait and see how it will bring peace in our Regions in the weeks ahead. I will propose for Government to first start by demilitarizing the Anglophone Regions; the massive presence of soldiers keeps creating tension and panic. The Government should put a mechanism in place for proper dialogue to take place. Even with those they are calling secessionists or terrorists who are in prison, I think Government will still have to look for a means to dialogue with them.

Nquiaka Viviane, Teacher Douala

An all-inclusive dialogue

I suggest that the President opens frank dialogue will all persons involved; that must include Ayuk Julius and his band because dialogue is never a one man show. Before now, they arrested some Anglophones like Agbor Balla and Ayah Paul, thinking it would solve the problem but it only aggravated it. We need frank dialogue and action. The people concerned should come together with equal status and discuss the way forward. It should not be like the dictatorship we witnessed last time in Bamenda in the name of dialogue. Without this, I am afraid that Cameroon will witness something worse than Rwanda.

Mekumba Dieudonne, Yaounde

A referendum to establish what Anglophones want

I think a referendum to establish what Anglophones really want is the best way to end this civil war that is a breath away. The Government knows this but has been pretending to want to resolve this crisis. A referendum will not cost them even a tiny bit of what they have wasted so far. But, they are riding a very high horse. Once the limping horse stops automatically, then they will fall to the ground. They should not say we did not tell them. Without a referendum, trust me, the crisis is still beginning.

Ashu Ndemalia, Actor

Yaounde has the solution to this crisis

Yaounde has the solution to this crisis. I think the dictatorial Government should now force the guys to the dialogue table now that the Minister of Communication claims that they are in Yaounde. The dialogue that will solve the Anglophone crisis should focus on the opinions of all parties. It should take into account the opinion of unionists, federalists and separatists. Then, they should organize a referendum so the people of Southern Cameroons can choose which one they want for themselves. I insist that the dialogue must be supervised by the African Union and the United Nations Organisation. Sentencing those people (if at all there is any ground on which they can be sentenced) will lead to more havoc than imaginable.

Bonvemock Cedric, Unemployed

Free, fair and frank dialogue

Now that leaders of both parties are in the same town, I think all that is left is a free, fair and frank dialogue. By free, I mean each man should be given the chance to air their thoughts, not a talk at gunpoint. For the dialogue to be fair each party must recognize the other as a leader of a people and each constituency well defined. It goes without saying that frank dialogue would mean putting all cards on the table as they are: black or white. However, I know that this will be very difficult because no Government is willing to negotiate with people it calls terrorists,worse of all, in the eyes of international bodies. Now, let us face the facts. It is needless to think of dialogue with people who are bent and fixed on their ideas of a one and indivisible country. It is clear that with that mentality; even a referendum will not change a thing except it is in their favour. Let the Government do what it does best. Bribe them and release them. They have got a people to lead out there,even though I do not buy this method.

Elimbi Lobe is a maverick politician par excellence. As one time Municipal Councillor and Littoral Regional Executive Member of the SDF, his outings on TV panels have conjured the image of a rabble-rouser, maladjusted rebel, perpetually at war with himself. Not even the SDF wherein he is supposed to be an active member has been free of his diatribes that reflect bigotry from a mind-set that sees everything wrong in Bamilekes and Anglophones, who by his reckoning, have deprived ‘Sawa’ flourish within the leading opposition party in Cameroon.

He was recently in the news again on account of another swipe at Anglophones when he insinuated that “No Anglophone can defeat President Paul Biya in an election.” Ordinarily, this ought to have attracted no attention given that Elimbi is not a political force even in the Littoral where his bravado has been silenced by the perspicacity of Joshua Osih and Jean Michel Nintcheu, representatives of the clime of Cameroonians who have subjected him to political nightmares within the SDF.

However, the fact that his gobbledygook deriding Anglophones reminisces average Francophone perception of leadership as an issue of majority, even if such majority has to all intents and purposes floated the impression that governance is synonymous to opportunity for a privileged few to ride roughshod their compatriots, makes his conjecture to deserve a revisit. The contention here is that contrary to Francophone glib perception of governance, Anglophones see it as a veritable opportunity to be at the service of electorates who deserve adequate attention in compensation for the votes that catapult leaders to positions of authority. This means that leadership straddles responsibility and integrity. It is not a master/servant relationship akin to feudalism in medieval Europe like the current regime is wont to exhibit. It is therefore unlikely, that there can be a better person than an Anglophone to enable us gravitates to Eldorado from our current political dungeon.

The essence of this narrative is that Anglophones see politics as a matter of compromises and consensus while Francophones see unanimity as the artery of politics. Compromises and consensus are outcomes of dialogue and negotiations while unanimity conjures autocracy and dictatorship. This can be seen in the articulations of CPDM headship. Of course, the CPDM is just an elongation of the CNU. It is customary to sense deification of ordinary mortals with calls for a natural presidential candidate who is leader of a party that is “the way, the truth and the light.” Oh yes, the natural candidate overseas a well-oiled system of prebendal relationships that ensures his perpetuity at the helm of state. His stay at the helm is the outgrowth of unanimity that in itself is borne out of perceived need to cling to the helmsman in order to continue benefiting from undue advantages. Such a system glorifies mediocrity with competence desecrated upon to usher in a flourish of nepotism and cronyism. Because unanimity is the order of the day, everything reposes on the whims of the grand master. There is no room for initiative and by extension innovation.

It is this stymied governance that Anglophones have come to grips with from hindsight garnered from what obtained in the few years of self-government in Southern Cameroons and, decided that enough is enough. No society can make any meaningful progress with the kind of leadership that expects serfs to slug it out on a daily basis just so that manor lords sit in the comfort of their castles and revel in wine drinking and licentiousness. Oh no! This is not our credo of governance-governance underpinned by the lurid notion that because by some twist of fate a cabal has constituted itself into Government, every foul means must be employed to bring about its permanence. Elections are rigged with the aid of soldiers paid with tax money contributed by the very people who are alienated from power and this has all along meant nothing to some who still see buccaneering in Anglophone recrimination for improved governance in Cameroon.

Judging by the above, who then is better placed to replace Biya? Cowardly people like Elimbi or conscientious Anglophones who have stood up several times to unequivocally proclaim the rottenness of the current system that has thwarted development in the country in the last 35 years. By the way, apart from Professor Maurice Kamto, who for reasons bordering more on vote hunt than conviction has embraced federalism, which other Francophone political headship has diagnosed Cameroon’s problem as too much centralisation and in the event prescribed federalism as antidote in the manner Anglophones have been articulating in the aftermath of democracy’s murder by the 1972 political coup d’etat, euphemistically called national unity referendum. While admitting that no one is born a saint and that integrity in mortal beings cannot be vouched for until such a time that recourse to irresponsible conduct has been ruled out by persistent indulgence in acts adjudged to be emanations of altruism, governance by participation and by extension devolution of power from the centre to the periphery is the best solution to credible, accountable and transparent governance. The essence here is that governance ought to be institutional, not personified.

From our current experience, most Francophone leaders are merely out to satisfy their bloated egos. They are not out for the good of ordinary Cameroonians. As President Biya once said, “they don’t have any credible manifesto: they are just interested in my position.” This is very true for most Cameroonians who have this far indicated their desire to be President. Make no mistake! It is the right of every Cameroonian to accede to the presidency of the republic provided such individuals fulfil the eligibility criteria. However, with the current political stand-off in the country, there is need to flush out the present system that believes that valiant youths should be pitted against each other for mutual annihilation while regime barons and military commanders sit in the luxury of their homes built with money extorted from the public till revel in profligacy. Oh yes! Shine your eyes! We have come to the point where the issues ought not to be Anglophone or Francophone but who replaces Biya.

The common denominator of Cameroon’s woes is putrid governance perpetrated by Biya and his CPDM coterie of criminally insensitive adherents and sympathisers. What should be of interest to Cameroonians at our current political trajectory is how to flush out Biya and his hangers-on. If politicians indeed, care about the wellbeing of ordinary Cameroonians then their focus ought to be on how to eject the Biya virus from our political system. Since unanimity can only obtain in systems like the CPDM. What is required now is consensus among the opposition. What this means is that discussions and negotiations that should be underlined by true dialogue ought to begin in the direction of coming up with a single candidate to face Biya and his political offensive. Francophone or Anglophone is not an issue here even as preference in terms of philosophy of governance should lean on the latter.

This letter is addressed to you because it is rightly assumed that you are the product of refinement through training and continuous mentoring. Unlike the ragtag terrorist agitators you are fighting, order is supposed to be ingrained in your personae. However, your recent presence in Manyu and Meme Divisions tend to invoke a rather sombre picture of your clairvoyance capacity, or its complete absence. Whatever the circumstance, tread softly, my compatriot.

Furthermore, judging from the way you prosecute assignments, certainly, on the instructions of your superior officers, there is the definite impression that you mistake all Anglophones for terrorists. More so, your indiscriminate shooting and killing of unarmed, hapless civilians, especially, on the occasion of the death of your colleague(s) allegedly killed by some faceless individuals who call themselves ‘Ambazonia Forces,’ is not a solution to the present face-off between Government and Anglophones.

The guerilla warfare launched against you by the “terrorists” has no doubt been slaying many of your peers. It is understandable that such situations might be difficult for you to accept because it presents a kind of defeat picture, but it is not true.

You might be the terrorists’ target but Ah! Mr. Soldier, mind you, hapless civilians are no substitute for the faceless individuals attacking you. You have the duty to locate, defeat and conquer them. Even if you kill all Anglophones civilians, you are not declared victorious or should I say, you are not safe yet-you will have no peace because your enemy still lives and intimidates.

Please Mr. Soldier; in the event where you are attacked in a particular locality by faceless individuals, do not in anger or in the spirit of revenge react by shooting indiscriminately at every living being on sight; razing down homes and rendering hundreds of fellow Cameroonians refugees in their own homeland.

You did this in Manyu and then in Meme. Have the “terrorists” stopped their activities? Of course not, so logical reasoning should tell you that, the guys perpetrating these inhumane acts on you are probably not from those localities and, so, would have little or nothing to regret after you raid in revenge. Mr. Soldier, by doing what you are doing to the local population, you only give them ideas that negatively change their impression of you.

By burning down entire villages, you immediately turn those people into your enemies because you treated them as such and that scare will take generations to heal. The point is, by doing what you do, you become as inhumane as the extremists. Remember, it is not in your place to inflict greater pain, loses and burden on your camp; when the people are shot, killed, maimed, rendered homeless, it is not the inhuman radical who will come to their rescue afterwards, but the Government.

In a sense, it is Cameroon that loses its human resources and not the terrorists, and this has tremendous impact on the country’s development. Analytically, if we continue on this lane, Mr. Soldier, “Vision 2035” would be a farce because the resources supposed to be put together for national development is being irrationally wasted.

If one puts together houses and properties torched in Manyu and now Meme, as well as the number of people rendered homeless, one can only begin to imagine the difficulties these people will go through in managing to pick up the broken pieces of their lives.

Please Mr. Soldier, you are out to protect civilians as opposed to killing and exposing them to danger. Remember that all lives matter and we are all Cameroonians before being civilian, military, Anglophone or Francophone. Please, shoot no more, and kill not innocent civilians in Anglophone localities.

Another election year has come upon us, even as those who were elected five years ago for Senators, Parliamentarians and Mayors and, seven for the President of the Republic seem to be in wondering contemplation whether these past years have any basis in reality.

The element of surprise emanates from a clear avowal of incapacity to deliver according to schedule and unfulfilled promises made during campaigns for the ebbing mandate. The only signs of representation of the people’s mandate are cars and houses built for personal comfort with nothing to show in the communities whose votes had catapulted them to positions of authority, even if, without responsibility.

This uninviting circumstance in any case, is not limited to the ruling CPDM. Even in Councils administered by opposition political parties, the story may just be different in negligible degrees. The common denominator is unmitigated disregard for the welfare of their electorates. After all, there is nobody to call them to order. This worrisome outcome is derivable from administrators who pass off as supervisory authorities despite the oddity of such circumstance that is not supposed to have obtained in the first place.They hardly strain their minds in relation to whether elected Mayors work in accordance with statutes. It suffices for mayors to oil the mouths of epicurean administrators and concern for the welfare of communities will in a jiffy be thrown to the dogs. In the event, the electorate has become lethargic to issues of political bearing. Even registering as prelude to acquitting themselves of a civic responsibility like voting has become anathema, to the point where in a country of more than 20 million people, it has been persistently impossible to have up to 10 million voters on the electoral roll.

The current disposition of potential voters notwithstanding, Mr. Biya who has vested himself with the prerogative of, solely, deciding when and how elections hold in Cameroon, has already set the bells chiming for a series of invitations to the electorate in the course of the year. What this portends is that there is no letting up either by his CPDM surrogates or him in terms or an invidious quest to cling to power even as they have been clearly disavowed by most Cameroonians. The CPDM is determined to foist itself on Cameroonians no matter the prevailing political turmoil whose origin is rooted clearly in its inability to pilot the country to safe anchor, despite all the available material and human resources, just like Mr. Biya unabashedly, makes no bones about another run at the presidency. To that end, nobody can deny them their right to savour political power. After all, Mr. President had made it clear that the constitution is a toy that can be deployed according to his whims as long as it exudes the satisfaction it was intended to provide.

However, the issue currently at stake is not whether the CPDM wants to maintain itself in power or that the party and its national president had since lost legitimacy. What should concern Cameroonians is how to eject President Paul Biya and the CPDM from Etoudi, the National Assembly and various municipalities in the country. This is of capital importance because it is the first step towards reinstating the rule of law, accountability and transparency in governance. For this to happen there is only one possible solution. The opposition must stand as one. While conceding that this is certainly a Herculean task given the antecedents in the quest for a single candidate to stand against the ubiquitous CPDM rigging machinery, the project can nevertheless, be carried to safe anchor if concern for the nation is given precedence instead of pampering of individual egos.

Granted that the CPDM has the advantage of omnipresence nationwide owing to the fact that no distinction is made between the much vaunted ruling party and the state, there is still room for opposition victory in the presidential given the putrid stigma that the “Government party” has attracted to itself. The fact that it has mismanaged the economy, too, is not news to discerning Cameroonians apart from hangers on who want the state cow to be milked to dryness. Even worse is the fact that the country is in political turmoil, no thanks to Mr. Biya’s aversion to frank and inclusive dialogue.

Another pole of attraction is the success the opposition Union for Change brought to bear against Biya in the 1992 presidential election. If only personality conflicts can for once be swept under the carpet and the good of Cameroon projected, then there will certainly be room for ultimate victory.

These are issues that cannot be undermined by any wary Cameroonian. They certainly cast aspersions against the ruling oligarchy in the minds of potential voters. This is, also, where political maturity comes in. In the current circumstance wherein Anglophones worry who to be called villain and who to glorify between federalists and separatists, it is becoming increasingly difficult to adopt a common strategy. The illusion of an Ambazonian state seems to have infested the minds of Anglophones to the point where any contrary view is considered anathema. Those who have attained maturity in terms of voting eligibility have refused to register. How then do we hope to come up with an alternative to the Biya political onslaught? The situation is not different within Francophone population even as here, there is an issue of bloated egos of politicians rather than real dichotomy emergent from political choices.

If we are earnestly concerned with bequeathing a better Cameroon to our offspring, we must begin to think of our collective good and imbue in ourselves and communities with the spirit of sacrifice that will permit us to forgo some things today for the good of our children’s tomorrow. It is only with mind-sets cast in such a perspective that we can begin fathoming a better tomorrow, devoid of the current bloodletting and economic woes inflicted on us by a clique that believes in here and now, instead of planning for a better tomorrow. A group that has planted their children in strategic positions to perpetuate pauperisation in a country where there would have been enough for everyone’s need even though not for their greed is riding roughshod on us, the time is now to weed them off the political landscape. The time is now to register and vote.

We are currently in the throes of very off-putting moments in the history of Cameroon. This is because what started just over one year ago as benign recrimination against the Biya regime, relating to perceived marginalization and alienation of Anglophones by teachers and lawyers, has wittingly or unwittingly morphed into mutual savagery!

This criminal disregard for the sacrosanctity of human lives has begun reaching very dreadful proportions. To that extent, Cameroon has lost its allure of peaceful oasis in a Central African desert that has been perpetually at war with itself, ever since negotiations collapsed between Government and aggrieved Anglophones on account of surreptitious supplanting of leaders of the Cameroon Anglophone Civil Society Consortium to Yaounde and their eventual incarceration for seven months, which circumstance forced some of them to flee into exile.

In their absence, therefore, the lack of effective and efficient coordination of the Anglophone vision for a more transparent and accountable governance that ensued has disposed inhabitants of the Southwest and Northwest Regions to reliance on a utopian elixir derivable from a yet to be established Ambazonia Republic. This rather puerile attraction to propaganda spewed by exuberant Diaspora youths has, in any case, been fuelled by the regime’s espousal of the delusion that lousy proclamation of state authority and ruthlessness in quelling protests is what is needed in these trying times. The lacklustre disposition of elected and appointed high-ranking Anglophones, who in any case, have been disavowed by their kinsfolk and, by that token, lost legitimacy to represent their interest, has not been helpful in charting a conciliatory course for the now incensed youths.

In the event, unwary observers could not have conjectured that we would find ourselves in circumstances akin to the early 1960’s in East Cameroon wherein traveling to certain areas of the country was analogous to executing a project with its sidekick of carrying on board design and feasibility studies right up to monitoring and evaluation. The horrors that used to adorn Bamileke and Bassa land are still with us. From the killing of gendarmes in the Northwest Region in the wake of the September 22 and October 1, 2017 clashes between soldiers and protesting youths during which many civilians are alleged to have been felled by live bullets, to the vengeful and gruesome murder of soldiers and policemen in Manyu Division, we have been witnessing a gradual descent into callousness, and to that extent, implantation of a hate culture that must be halted at all cost and by all means, if we are to avoid the Rwandan experience of 1994. We, at least, have the advantage of hindsight that can be effortlessly gleaned from the Nigeria/Biafra experience and more recently Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone, Liberia or Central African Republic.

Indeed, it is unfathomable that travelling to Mbonge Sub-Division and, eventually, Ndian Division has become nightmarish for a people known to be among, if not, the most hospitable Cameroonians. Penultimate Friday, it was the Chief of Ngongo-Bakundu, Ekebe Johannes who was lured by his own subjects out of a colleague’s funeral in Kwakwa, where he was officiating as coordinator, into a gruesome murder actualized by bullets being sprayed into his stomach at close range. Barely a week before that horrendous occurrence, a policeman had been decapitated with only skin holding his neck at a checkpoint in Kombone Bakundu. As if such savagery and despicable decline into psychosis were not mindboggling enough, a soldier driving his family from Mundemba to Kumba was only two days following the murder of Ngongo Chief, pulled out of his car and rough-handled to death in the full glare of his wife and children, by irate youths said to be exhibiting retribution against the destruction and paranoia inflicted on their kinsfolk by marauding soldiers who had invaded their village in the immediate aftermath of the murder of a policeman.

Prior to this obtuse display of superior force and vengeance along the Mbonge/Kumba road, the battlefield had been Manyu Division. Apart from the gruesome murder of soldiers, retaliatory expeditions of the forces of law and order had also, wreaked despicable havoc on mostly innocent and harmless villagers, causing many of the able-bodied persons to flee into the bushes, leaving the dead without indulgence of even a token burial. The same overdrive reaction has been noticed along the Mbonge/Kumba road where no fewer than 10 houses have been burnt – some with the unfortunate repercussion of loss of lives of unwary inhabitants. One is forced to question the correlation between the action of irate youths and the incineration of the abodes of mostly innocent villagers.

Be that as it may, this is not the time to apportion blames. On the contrary, such deleterious circumstances as we are currently experiencing call for very profound introspection. We should search ourselves very, very deeply, and be asking if this were to be the pattern of governance we are anticipating as legacy for our unborn children, how would posterity evaluate us? With this character as guiding principle, we will definitely come to the realization that all what we are killing ourselves for amounts to emptiness. From the Head of State, Paul Biya to the local villager in his native Mvomeka or Erat in heart of Korup Rainforest in Ndian Division, all of us are sojourners on this earth and one day we shall die, and thereafter, be subjected to the inescapable ritual of account rendering to our creator, the Almighty God. If we would have only given some time to this incontrovertible essence of life, no matter the side of the dichotomous divide of Anglophones and regime goons we happen to find ourselves, we would certainly have come to grips with the necessity to tread softly and, invariably spare families the irritant represented in premature deaths.

We are Cameroonians for crying out loud! What has been the stumbling block in having recourse to our customary gathering under shade trees to discuss whatever palaver is affecting the commonwealth? It can, indeed be very ‘pleasurable’ to sit back and watch how the tragedy that has sprung from indiscretion of regime headship and blinkered youths has been wasting the lives of valiant Cameroonians- that is if your close relative has not been hit and killed by a bullet or the coarseness of summary execution by knife cuts. Oh yes, that is the level to which we have degenerated. Regime apologists are so encrusted in their quest to ingratiate themselves to their masters in Yaounde that they forget that some of their actions are not only detrimental to the collective security of the people they are supposed to protect as representatives of the state but more significantly, they run counter to the aspirations of citizens they owe the responsibility of ensuring prevalence of peace and tranquillity that are necessary ingredients for self-actualization.

We are certainly above the lunacy that seems to pervade the national territory. Whether from the aggrieved party or the Government, the killings are getting to a point where a ceasefire has become imperative. Let the powers that be, too, seek the face of God and realize that nobody wins a war against their own people. We are Cameroonians. That is a fact! On the flip side, we cannot side-track the quintessence of our existence because of the myopic view of potential new era to be ushered by some obscure force or organization, notwithstanding the zeal and correctness of our recriminations. As a parting note, too, let those promoting the idea that some inhabitants of this geopolitical expression are more Cameroonian than others rethink their current stance and wear a different mind-set that will conduce to a new Cameroon where peace with justice and progress with stability reign supreme.

In the aftermath of Rio de Janerio, Brazil Earth Summit in 1992, concern for mother earth began assuming fever pitch as many countries prodded by conservationists, Community Based Organizations, CBOs, International Non-Governmental Organizations, NGOs and the academia began sounding warnings of a possible nosedive into Armageddon, judging by the unguarded manner in which the world’s natural resources were being depleted.

From Rio to Kyoto, Durban and now Paris, fretfulness about the future of a world in which the winner seems to take all has been haunting many world leaders to the point of even assuming an apocalyptic allure, with some exhibiting genuine concern and others paying lip service.

However, what has come to be an incontrovertible verdict is that we are all condemned to a very rough deal if the issues inherent in climate change are not given the calibre of attention they rightly deserve. Do not mind the distraction emanating from some academia naysayers who are wont to ascribe paranoia to warnings of an impending retribution from mismanagement of the earth’s resources.

Be that as it may, the youthful French President Emmanuel Macron must be accorded the necessary accolades and support in his contemporary bid to ensure the world’s natural resources are managed in such a manner as to conduce to a global reduction in avoidable crises. His decision to convene and host the immediate past climate change summit in Paris is much acclaimed and puts him in the pantheon of visionary world leaders who ascribe much importance to what our generation is indebted to posterity. For, it is obvious that most crises in the world have been caused by divergence in perceptions of resource allocation mechanisms – be they nationally or internationally.

Even so, what seems to be raising a snag is the manner in which this newfound love for preserving nature’s endowment to humankind has been carried out. Nobody can gainsay the interconnectedness of a world that has today been reduced to a global village by technology. By this token therefore, our generation’s legacy to posterity has to reflect goodwill, as well as being the brainchild of all and sundry. There should be no big country and small country or developed and underdeveloped country.

On the contrary, the idea of developed and underdeveloped countries should be visible in the complementarity that ought to be inherent in steps geared at curbing the current insecurity relating to gas emissions the world over. To him that more has been given, so too, would much be expected. What this easily translates into is that the developed nations of the world must be prepared to make the requisite sacrifices to usher into a healthier global environment with regards to ecological sanity. We cannot begrudge the advanced economies of the world for being where they are. However, if they have made commendable strides, it has been thanks to depletion of resources that would have been useful as buffers to the ozone layer.

In this regard, developing countries that by some twist of fate still have their natural resources, particularly, forests, intact must be accorded some compensatory mechanisms to cushion the adversity derivable from sacrifices that they must now make to ensure that the advanced countries do not reach the point where everybody would have been condemned to be permanently wearing gas masks.This must be the epicentre of further discussions in the realm of climate change.

The Amazon Basin, Congo Basin and parts of Indonesia and other Southeast Asian countries must be seen as ecological hotspots that require global attention in terms of financial assistance in the implementation of programmes whose conceptualization ought to be the result of specialist inputs from all over the world. This way, the complementarity necessary for a world devoid of permanent fear of annihilation by poisonous gases would have been floated for good. When this would have been done, leaders of the world shall then be au fait with the essence of governing for posterity – nothing akin to the present here-and-now mentality that seems to drive many world leaders.

Whatever the trajectory from which it is perceived, climate change ought to be of utmost concern to all. While admitting that there might have been elements of exaggeration in the approach conservationists and other apostles of doomsday- being- around-the-corner have treaded this far, the fact that urbanization that is inherent in population growth and technological advancement materializes in more and more pressure being exerted on resources, impels world leaders to see the need to immerse themselves into the global quest for a more sane approach to managing the earth’s resources.

This can only be achieved through consensus and not the dispersed pattern that is currently en vogue, particularly, the posturing of the United States of America where ironically, consumerism is at its peak. America’s current big brother swagger that makes her feel she can bully her way through any situation in the world does not, certainly, augur well for a world in quest of stability- ecologically, economically or in the realm of politics.

As a cautionary dispensation, local measures too, have to be conceived as deterrents to unscrupulous granting of concessions to logging companies and agri-business corporations. Admitted that in our skies, the ground rules are charming at the level of the Ministries of Forestry and Wildlife, what obtains at field level leaves much to be desired.

The appalling complicity between administrators -sometimes including Government ministers and forestry officials is such that calls for immediate truce. Not only are the logging companies indulged in unorthodox methods that do not make for reforestation as felling ignores safety of other trees, more vexing is the fact that some of the harvested tress have been abandoned in the forests. Reforestation projects have been hardly respected while sizes of logs are left to the discretion of the logging companies. Indeed, agri-business corporations are sometimes even accorded the luxury of logging in their concessions contrary to existing statutes.

In the Amazon basin, the internecine war between alienated natives and large-scale plantation promoters has meant that more and more forests have had to be erased. While clamouring for assistance from the developed world, we should sit back and think globally while acting locally. This way, the essence of Paris climate change summit would have had its intended impact and, the minds of the likes of French President Macron-arrowhead of a world devoid of ecological disasters would have been put to rest.